bdub77: So wait, money spent on food stamps might be related to unemployment?

I said "kids you can't afford". If you're unemployed you have no business having children. I don't understand why families with an income less than the national median think they should have kids - if you're considered so "poor" by the standards of the federal government that you don't have to pay federal income taxes you should damn well consider yourself too poor to have babby.

Shaggy_C: bdub77: So wait, money spent on food stamps might be related to unemployment?

I said "kids you can't afford". If you're unemployed you have no business having children. I don't understand why families with an income less than the national median think they should have kids - if you're considered so "poor" by the standards of the federal government that you don't have to pay federal income taxes you should damn well consider yourself too poor to have babby.

If you lose your job you should lose your kids. Amirite?

Shaggy_C: bdub77: So wait, money spent on food stamps might be related to unemployment?

I said "kids you can't afford". If you're unemployed you have no business having children. I don't understand why families with an income less than the national median think they should have kids - if you're considered so "poor" by the standards of the federal government that you don't have to pay federal income taxes you should damn well consider yourself too poor to have babby.

No, you implied in your stupid graph that poor people having children was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment (and I highly doubt those expenditures account for inflation)

If you don't want to look like an ass, don't make retarded statements without anything to back them up. And good luck with making 'no babies for the poor' a policy. If you want to make an impact on the birth rates of the poor why don't you do something about it? Maybe you could start by paying for poor people to have abortions.

Shaggy_C: GAT_00: Food prices doubled in India just in 2008.

We give food stamps to India?

You said food prices couldn't go up 60% over 10 years. I said it doubled in one country in one year. I would have thought the point I was making was obvious.

the farm bill should be abolished and we should have a stand alone food stamp bill.
any breaks needed for small mom and pop farmers should be dealt with in small business loan legislation.
we subsidize too many special interests with these things.

bdub77: No, you implied in your stupid graph that poor people having children was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment (and I highly doubt those expenditures account for inflation)

Could it be that "poor people having children" was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment ?

I'm just asking questions here...

MBK: Remember, it is okay when farmers need money from the government, but when black folk need it, THEY ARE WELFARE QUEENS!!!

Isn't that a line straight out of Heller's "Catch-22" ?

Without Fail: Could it be that "poor people having children" was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment ?

No.

Where Small Government no subsidies where?

Shaggy_C: There's about a 16 year lag since that's how long it takes little unwanted babby to turn into food stamp hording gang member thug with their own kids. If abortions had stayed up through the 90s we'd have less of a problem today.

Works for me. I'm not one of those anti-government pro-business fark-you I got mine kind of people. The little guy gets screwed by big business and "conservative" government policies a lot. But if there's one thing the little guys do have control over, it's how many kids they have.

Howie Spankowitz: For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy.

Please ask me for a citation.

"As Harvard economist Robert Barro notes, the Keynesian multipliers being offered to us by supporters of the welfare state are based on economic models, not on actual outcomes: "Theorizing aside, Keynesian policy conclusions, such as the wisdom of additional stimulus geared to money transfers, should come down to empirical evidence. And there is zero evidence that deficit-financed transfers raise GDP and employment-not to mention evidence for a multiplier of two.""

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02 /28/obamas-food-stamp-fetish/pri n t

GAT_00: You said food prices couldn't go up 60% over 10 years. I said it doubled in one country in one year. I would have thought the point I was making was obvious.

See my earlier post. There was some confusion on the chart he posted. It's been covered.

MyRandomName: "As Harvard economist Robert Barro notes, the Keynesian multipliers being offered to us by supporters of the welfare state are based on economic models, not on actual outcomes:

Sounds legit.

Sabyen91: Without Fail: Could it be that "poor people having children" was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment ?

No.

Actually, with the unskilled jobs going overseas, and education getting more and more expensive...

Wanted children from economically stable families are more likely to get a good education and employment.

Unwanted children from economically unstable families are more likely to go to prison or need food stamps.

Without Fail: Sabyen91: Without Fail: Could it be that "poor people having children" was the reason for the rise in food stamp expenditures, when the truth is that it's related to unemployment ?

No.

Actually, with the unskilled jobs going overseas, and education getting more and more expensive...

Wanted children from economically stable families are more likely to get a good education and employment.

Unwanted children from economically unstable families are more likely to go to prison or need food stamps.

That really has nothing to do with what you were positing.

MyRandomName: As Harvard economist Robert Barro notes, the Keynesian multipliers being offered to us by supporters of the welfare state are based on economic models, not on actual outcomes

Isn't that how most of economics works?

Everything is based on theories and models. To act like it's just confined to Keynesian economics is absurd.

GAT_00: GAT_00: SilentStrider: Howie Spankowitz: For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy.

Please ask me for a citation.

Could you provide a citation, good sir?

I have one, but you've have to wait a few until I get back to the desktop. Moody's did a study a while back that showed that if i remember the source right.

Oh, and

[i575.photobucket.com image 640x423]

But when you add all that up, it balances because there is no such thing as added money to an economy.

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: As Harvard economist Robert Barro notes, the Keynesian multipliers being offered to us by supporters of the welfare state are based on economic models, not on actual outcomes

Isn't that how most of economics works?

Everything is based on theories and models. To act like it's just confined to Keynesian economics is absurd.

It's impossible to predict anything if you don't build some kind of model.

Fuggin Bizzy: The bill eliminates direct government payments for crops which aren't planted

Republitards don't like this part? Makes a lot of sense to me. Oh...right. That means Republitards won't like it.

Giving money to poor people to buy food = bad
Giving money to farmers to not grow food = good

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: GAT_00: SilentStrider: Howie Spankowitz: For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy.

Please ask me for a citation.

Could you provide a citation, good sir?

I have one, but you've have to wait a few until I get back to the desktop. Moody's did a study a while back that showed that if i remember the source right.

Oh, and

[i575.photobucket.com image 640x423]

But when you add all that up, it balances because there is no such thing as added money to an economy.

If you can't add money, how is there job growth?

The bill eliminates direct government payments for crops which aren't planted and yet provides subsidies for farmers whose crops are facing tough times.

[okaywiththis]

/See also: That whole "feeding hungry people" thing.
//Fun factoid: It's illegal to video or photograph conditions at a factory farm in Montana due to mostly Republican led efforts to legislate Ag-gag laws..

Sabyen91: If you lose your job you should lose your kids. Amirite?

I wouldn't go that far; temporary unemployment is not indicative of long-term earnings potential. But I would have no problem exploring the option of pregnancy licensing and restricting it to those who are above the poverty line.

bdub77: If you don't want to look like an ass, don't make retarded statements without anything to back them up. And good luck with making 'no babies for the poor' a policy. If you want to make an impact on the birth rates of the poor why don't you do something about it? Maybe you could start by paying for poor people to have abortions.

I support subsidized temporary sterilization for all high school seniors and birth control pills for all high-school aged girls.

fosborb: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: As Harvard economist Robert Barro notes, the Keynesian multipliers being offered to us by supporters of the welfare state are based on economic models, not on actual outcomes

Isn't that how most of economics works?

Everything is based on theories and models. To act like it's just confined to Keynesian economics is absurd.

It's impossible to predict anything if you don't build some kind of model.

That's the point I was trying to make.

To completely invalidate something just because it's just an economic model would mean you would have to invalidate every school of economics.

That initial post made my head hurt just because of the stupidity of it.

ginandbacon: Urban: the new blah.

I don't really get all the hate the GOP seem to have towards people who are suave, courteous, and refined in manner.

/What?

bronyaur1: Tarkus: Shaggy_C: 1 in 7 people in the United States receives food stamps. That's over 40 million people.

The CBO projects that 15 years from now we'll still have more people on food stamps and will be spending more per person than we did just five years ago. So much for a 'recovery'.

[i50.tinypic.com image 640x419]

In other words: Stop having kids you can't afford, assholes.

Maybe conservatives should stop trying to limit or ban birth control.


... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're done here.

Unless you are too dumb to recognize the connection.

Don't worry, most of our righty trolls are that dumb.

Probably because they're beet farmers.

Shaggy_C: I support subsidized temporary sterilization for all high school seniors and birth control pills for all high-school aged girls.

quatchi: ginandbacon: Urban: the new blah.

I don't really get all the hate the GOP seem to have towards people who are suave, courteous, and refined in manner.

/What?

They have the envy?

/WHAT?

Shaggy_C: Sabyen91: If you lose your job you should lose your kids. Amirite?

I wouldn't go that far; temporary unemployment is not indicative of long-term earnings potential. But I would have no problem exploring the option of pregnancy licensing and restricting it to those who are above the poverty line.



You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

dugitman: 2.bp.blogspot.com

If it were up to me there would never be another pregnant teenager in this country.

Generation_D: In Washington State, the red counties are the welfare queens, the blue counties where people have jobs that pay better are the true Job Creators.

Look at that. The blue counties pay more, and the red counties are the welfare queens.

So its actually the opposite of what the Republican claims.

Go figure.

Those red areas that cost more money then it puts into the system look like they coincide with national parks/forest and military bases and the Hanford Site.


go figure.

Shaggy_C:
I support subsidized temporary sterilization for all high school seniors and birth control pills for all high-school aged girls.

Yup, condoms from the counselor's office and acne pills are pretty great.

malaktaus: You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

Are you more concerned about society or the individual? In most cases, both are better off when the impoverished do not procreate. Most of the country's problems - be it education, drugs, crime - stem from poverty.

malaktaus:
You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

North Carolina, among other states.

Shaggy_C: dugitman: 2.bp.blogspot.com

If it were up to me there would never be another pregnant teenager in this country.

Fair enough. When you run for office you should probably be a little vague on the details of your social policy solutions.

malaktaus: Shaggy_C: Sabyen91: If you lose your job you should lose your kids. Amirite?

I wouldn't go that far; temporary unemployment is not indicative of long-term earnings potential. But I would have no problem exploring the option of pregnancy licensing and restricting it to those who are above the poverty line.



You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

Heil Shaggy_C!!!!

Shaggy_C: malaktaus: You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

Are you more concerned about society or the individual? In most cases, both are better off when the impoverished do not procreate. Most of the country's problems - be it education, drugs, crime - stem from poverty.

So what's your cutoff figure for "impoverishment"? Anything less than what you have?

Gyrfalcon: Shaggy_C: malaktaus: You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

Are you more concerned about society or the individual? In most cases, both are better off when the impoverished do not procreate. Most of the country's problems - be it education, drugs, crime - stem from poverty.

So what's your cutoff figure for "impoverishment"? Anything less than what you have?

It would likely be an incredible list of complicated requirements that means only millionaires can reproduce.

Shaggy_C: I wouldn't go that far; temporary unemployment is not indicative of long-term earnings potential. But I would have no problem exploring the option of pregnancy licensing and restricting it to those who are above the poverty line.

I support subsidized temporary sterilization for all high school seniors and birth control pills for all high-school aged girls.

You support a bunch of shiat that has exactly 0% chance of becoming reality. Great. Really helpful there.

Howie Spankowitz: For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy.

Please ask me for a citation.

This bears repeating. Food stamps are directly injected into local economies. You can't outsource shelf stockers or cashiers to other countries. They create demand and jobs at home, and the money certainly helps stockholders and executives of the companies where people shop.

Shaggy_C: malaktaus: You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

Are you more concerned about society or the individual? In most cases, both are better off when the impoverished do not procreate. Most of the country's problems - be it education, drugs, crime - stem from poverty.

you mean culture.
a misogynistic culture that views legitimate forms of authority and education with outright contempt and that values illicit gain over property rights and human life creates most of the country's problems.

/and variations of this culture can be found in every race in America. and the

Shvetz: Howie Spankowitz: For every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 is generated throughout the economy.

Please ask me for a citation.

This bears repeating. Food stamps are directly injected into local economies. You can't outsource shelf stockers or cashiers to other countries. They create demand and jobs at home, and the money certainly helps stockholders and executives of the companies where people shop.

So mandate that everyone particpates in the foodstamp program........

malaktaus: Shaggy_C: Sabyen91: If you lose your job you should lose your kids. Amirite?

I wouldn't go that far; temporary unemployment is not indicative of long-term earnings potential. But I would have no problem exploring the option of pregnancy licensing and restricting it to those who are above the poverty line.



You know who else encouraged childbirth in certain demographics while discouraging it in others?

At least this Godwin is somewhat appropriate to the subject.

Personally, I believe overpopulation is [one of] humanity's biggest aggravators. Achieve a balanced population, and war will be reduced, unemployment will be minimal, food won't be scarce, etc. I am fairly optimistic about it though.

/free condoms at my place!

but that self destructive culture isn't nearly the biggest problem this country faces. maybe it was in the late 1980's, but it hasn't been the biggest problem in a while.

there are self inflicted political issues that create much bigger problems for this country, like the war on drugs, the affirmative effort to devalue lower and middle class labor, and the failure to deal with healthcare inflation, that are all much bigger issues at this point.

relcec: but that self destructive culture isn't nearly the biggest problem this country faces. maybe it was in the late 1980's, but it hasn't been the biggest problem in a while.

there are self inflicted political issues that create much bigger problems for this country, like the war on drugs, the affirmative effort to devalue lower and middle class labor, and the failure to deal with healthcare inflation, that are all much bigger issues at this point.

Actually, the culture seems to be tilting back to the lesser 80's values. All music has sex references, but when (and I'm serious) almost EVERY SINGLE SONG in modern popular music refers to either sex or alcohol (it isn't rock and roll), the budding teens will be influenced.

/I asked a few kids about what new songs were about (I had a different motive). they could barely remember the last song they liked that wasn't about a girl.

Guidette Frankentits: Shaggy_C: There's about a 16 year lag since that's how long it takes little unwanted babby to turn into food stamp hording gang member thug with their own kids. If abortions had stayed up through the 90s we'd have less of a problem today.

Works for me. I'm not one of those anti-government pro-business fark-you I got mine kind of people. The little guy gets screwed by big business and "conservative" government policies a lot. But if there's one thing the little guys do have control over, it's how many kids they have.

So if a family's breadwinner becomes unemployed, we kill the firstborn male child?
Too Jewish??

Giltric: Generation_D: In Washington State, the red counties are the welfare queens, the blue counties where people have jobs that pay better are the true Job Creators.

Look at that. The blue counties pay more, and the red counties are the welfare queens.

So its actually the opposite of what the Republican claims.

Go figure.

Those red areas that cost more money then it puts into the system look like they coincide with national parks/forest and military bases and the Hanford Site.


go figure.

How does that invalidate the fact that a lot of red states are pretty dependent for their economies?

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Generation_D: In Washington State, the red counties are the welfare queens, the blue counties where people have jobs that pay better are the true Job Creators.

Look at that. The blue counties pay more, and the red counties are the welfare queens.

So its actually the opposite of what the Republican claims.

Go figure.

Those red areas that cost more money then it puts into the system look like they coincide with national parks/forest and military bases and the Hanford Site.


go figure.

How does that invalidate the fact that a lot of red states are pretty dependent on the federal government for their economies?

FTFM

b b bb bbb but giving tax money to farmers/farms is Socialism!

GhostFish: Shaggy_C: In other words: Stop having kids you can't afford, assholes.

When the fark in the history of the world has that ever worked on a large scale?

People are going to fark, and there's nothing to be done about it. Telling them not to is as effective as telling them to stop breathing, or to stop eating and drinking. It's a basic function of life, and people are hard pressed to control it. Especially when they are poor.

"Stop having kids" is not a realistic strategy.



i accept the fact that folks love a good f*ck, but at least they could put a rain coat on or some other form of contraception. oh sh*t, i forgot, God and Jesus don't like rubbers/contraception.

my bad. republicans have decided that they love giving out food stamps as long as folks support right to life.